I have always wondered about the greater than the sum notion. Shouldn't a person be exactly the sum of it's parts? Aren't our choices made based upon experience and instinct and desire? Aren't our goals based on those same things? What makes us greater than the trees is our ability to walk. A tree's soul may be a wonder to behold if ever they choose to speak with us.
I guess we could take 10 people and stab them with a knife. If every person cries out and bleeds then we know there is no free will because they did the same thing as the mice? And we 'know' mice have no free will?
By your arguments I gather that you consider all methods of controlling fertility and conception to be degrading. Well, that is a natural enough point of view. I am all for allowing nature to take it's course and boy meets girl and the birds are chirping and the bee's, you crazy kids!!
This talk of the commoditizing of children completely ignores all of the laws put in place to attempt to protect children though. Last I checked raising my kids was a lot of work and if people want in on this fun train, well, they should be allowed to try. Are you just afraid that they might be good at it?
That is a neat article. My first thought was that they should enable that experiment to see if the subconscious is able to make predictions beyond Newtons laws. Objectively, I doubt the human senses are sensitive enough to go beyond the need for Newtons laws. But the idea of a learned response to the environment was followed by the idea of closely studying that response in various experiments to see what is implied about that environment. In theory, anyway, it makes me wonder if we could learn more about gravity by these studies as well as learning more about the human condition.
The article should have included that information.
normal:.31 m/s * 100 seconds = 31 meters
shortened:.14 m/s * 100 seconds = 14 meters
that is very close to the problem of time vs. step count issue.
lengthened:.29 m/s * 100 seconds = 29 meters which does not match the observed and therefore does differentiate the time form the step count.
Honestly, I am surprised they would even go the shortening route considering the potential impact of severing limbs on an animal would impact performance. Clearly, ants must not be too critically hindered by the loss but that is still odd to assume that amputation would not effect endurance/capacity. They are just fortunate that the added weight did slow the ants down otherwise they still would not have a very solid theory.
In actuality as a final validation, they should not be measuring anything or cutting or lengthening jack. They should film the entire trek, hit replay and start counting. Lazy scientists.
I especially like the added 'max'. So off the cuff to set an upper bound on time to complete innovation. Man, what took Einstein so damn long to complete the Unified Theory? He already had General Relativity. The Unified Theory should have only taken 2 years, max, and that lazy 'great thinker', so called, didn't even finish it!
I seem to recall some mention during the last major solar event that if the event had been predicted several power management strategies could be put into effect to mitigate or minimize the outage. It the difference of reducing output briefly vs. re-initializes a massive system after an outage.
Dogs that behave like cats? That's just crazy. Clearly they are working towards the eventual release of robo-cats. The strays will present an interesting dilema to the animal shelters. Especially the no-kill sort.
Well, as far as the billion years go, who knows? The problem isn't the Earth's potential to swing in temperature. It's our ability live and prosper in those ranges. Personally, I don't want to experience just how hot/wet or cold it can get on this rock.
I just hope the insurance companies really do stop offering hurricane insurance.
Actually, I that that was weird as well. And I wondered if it was related to that scandal where the government lawyer dog was inserting those type of adjectives and disclaimers into the statements.
Hmm.. On the one hand you are right about the lack of good economical sense in this situation. However, I think you are ignoring the engineering advances involved in the construction of such a pen. The cheap, easy solutions are not always best and the expensive solution/research may lend itself to other advances in technology and/or science. Besides it's not like those scientists have anything better to research.
Screw Fusion, man. Today, I investigate the many mysteries of fly-paper.
It's the purple packers turn and I think he's going for a solar energy production bonanza. A risky move indeed.
I think much of this debate revolves around the absence of M.U.L.E.s. Apparently, we need a generic production robot that can generate materials at an incredible rate with minimal input. Primarily because we cannot support the entire infrastructure of human labor until a fairly large subset of said infrastructure is in place. Too large a subset to bring to the site in payloads, at any rate, due to the cost of moving that much material.
I thought copyright law was based on stealing stuff and hemp was based on the inability of law enforcement to easily distinguish it from controlled substances. Well, I guess I was way off! It turns out Copyright law is just just about books and hemp is just the cotton growers keeping a competitor off the shelves. Dude!
Ah, well, we ruin peoples lives because they make mistakes and are then held accountable for those mistakes. The goal at one time was not to 'ruin' but 'reform' unfortunately judging by your argument you don't buy that. I don't really buy it myself. For one thing the weed smoker clearly doesn't believe they have committed a crime. For another thing prison seems to mangle more folks than it corrects.
What is this chronic pain you speak of and why is it so commonplace in certain parts of the country. Wow, that must be a tough diagnosis to get from a physician. "Doc! I'm hurtin' man! I need a sweet score, hook me up?"
Why is weed illegal? IANALawyer but I would guess it alters one's state of mind and is therefore not to be trusted. Sure it turns out to be mostly harmless and what activity isn't somewhat dangerous these days? But the fundemental rule when applied was valid enough and no argument since has been strong enough to repeal it. *screw you, hippy lol*
*note: I don't really care (seriously) I just found your arguments strange enough to elicit comment
My wife miscarried at 2.5 months and I cried like a grown man who just lost a future child. Cuz that's what I was. All issues of viability and healthiness aside, it hurt to lose the baby. The doc showed me the intact sac holding the fetus. That's about I'll say on that.
You can be as cold and clinical as you like. Some women dislike children, so unborn children are even less of a consideration.
Hah!
Move people! That's silly:)
You don't move people, you provide a place for them to move to and overtime they will go to this place, if it's a good place to be.
I have heard that S. Korea will build an empty city and then round up 8 or 9 nearby villages and force them to live there. It's an unfortunate practice but necesary for S. Korea to modernize itself. And they are committed to modernization. They have intense cellular and broadband infrastructure for these reasons, as well.
The problem with the poor people that can't seem to grow there own food isn't the people. It's the weather cycles and the corruption. I suppose if there were always good weather they would survive ok and be less civil war and strife. But the cycles of famine seem to have broken their ability to be at peace. A farmer manages to grow a crop only to have it burned or stolen by a local warlord. Not too mention the ravages of diseases, foreign and domestic. And how often is it that they are not allowed to flee or given a place to flee to?
A friend of mine wants nothing more than to hop on a spaceship and leave this miserable rock behind. So don't assume that it will be the poor, lost or homeless that journey away from mother earth when the opportunity to do so arrives.
Hadn't you heard? For centuries Man thought the moon made of cheese and long to go there. Upon arrival Man discovered it was just a dirty old rock and never looked back.
Also the refinement of titanium at teh parts per million or parts per billion level is damn close to spinning straw into gold for most people. Seeing the breakers in a strip mine operation is a rude awakening to how modern mining works and future mining may work.
Crush everything and run it through a fine fine sieve/chemical bath/extraction operatus. Bleh, but so it shall go.
I didn't really find any clear cut stats but the fatalities statistics at www.dropzone.com are searchable, so for 2004-2006 there were 126 reported accidents of which 24 were female. That is 19%.
Right. And every man dumb enough to want to intentionally risk dying for cheap thrills is rational enough to only do things which are objectively safe because of their supremely honed reflexes and perfect masculine physic.
This is weird. I thought I understood your point but your sentence is all back-assward. I guess I could try to put you shit in order then answer it? I think you meant subjectively safe.
My attempt: "Every man who risks dying is not doing safe things."
I see how you are jumping straight to the greater risks in life and in away that makes sense. People don't generally die slipping on ice. But as far as that goes nor do people die that often skydiving. At least not so much as to contribute to the national average.
So for "your about to jump out of working airplane" example, I think you are mixing fear and courage into the equation. And I understand that given the subject of risk and death but I would never say that women are not courageous or brave.
But I would say that men are more likely to be less afraid of the jump and therefore more likely on average to make the jump. Why? Is it the confidence in knowing that the cord will pull and the shoot will deploy? Do some men guenuinely believe they will survive the plunge? Or as another reply stated they are simply less afraid to die because family matters less. You see the problem is that your scenario removes control and that is a completely valid point. In the absence of control are men still more likely to take risks. Phew, I really had to work to get to this point. In the absence of control are men more likely to take risks and if so is it because they are less fearful of the consequences or more confident in their survivability? Or is the reward simply more rewarding (the thrill)? I'm guessing all three.
Ironically, from my personal experience in a group rock climbing activity a girl got scared on the cliff face and did in fact say "I am not a guy" when others were trying to encourage her to get past her fear point. Eventually she made it, she just needed more time and rest. The problem in a non-safe environment is that both time and rest may not be available.
Right. And every man dumb enough to want to intentionally risk dying for cheap thrills is rational enough to only do things which are objectively safe because of their supremely honed reflexes and perfect masculine physic./i
This is weird. I thought I understood your point but your sentence is all back-assward. I guess I could try to put you shit in order then answer it? I think you meant subjectively safe.
My attempt: "Every man who risks dying is not doing safe things."
I see how you are jumping straight to the greater risks in life and in away that makes sense. People don't generally die slipping on ice. But as far as that goes nor do people die that often skydiving. At least not so much as to contribute to the national average.
So for "your about to jump out of working airplane" example, I think you are mixing fear and courage into the equation. And I understand that given the subject of risk and death but I would never say that women are not courageous or brave.
But I would say that men are more likely to be less afraid of the jump and therefore more likely on average to make the jump. Why? Is it the confidence in knowing that the cord will pull and the shoot will deploy? Do some men guenuinely believe they will survive the plunge? Or as another reply stated they are simply less afraid to die because family matters less. You see the problem is that your scenario removes control and that is a completely valid point. In the absence of control are men still more likely to take risks. Phew, I really had to work to get to this point.
In the absence of control are men more likely to take risks and if so is it because they are less fearful of the consequences or more confident in their survivability? Or is the reward simply more rewarding (the thrill)? I'm guessing all three.
Ironically, from my personal experience in a group rock climbing activity a girl got scared on the cliff face and did in fact say "I am not a guy" when others were trying to encourage her to get past her fear point. Eventually she made it, she just needed more time and rest. The problem in a non-safe environment is that both time and rest may not be available.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems to be a trick of logic.
I have always wondered about the greater than the sum notion. Shouldn't a person be exactly the sum of it's parts? Aren't our choices made based upon experience and instinct and desire? Aren't our goals based on those same things? What makes us greater than the trees is our ability to walk. A tree's soul may be a wonder to behold if ever they choose to speak with us.
I guess we could take 10 people and stab them with a knife. If every person cries out and bleeds then we know there is no free will because they did the same thing as the mice? And we 'know' mice have no free will?
By your arguments I gather that you consider all methods of controlling fertility and conception to be degrading. Well, that is a natural enough point of view. I am all for allowing nature to take it's course and boy meets girl and the birds are chirping and the bee's, you crazy kids!!
This talk of the commoditizing of children completely ignores all of the laws put in place to attempt to protect children though. Last I checked raising my kids was a lot of work and if people want in on this fun train, well, they should be allowed to try. Are you just afraid that they might be good at it?
That is a neat article. My first thought was that they should enable that experiment to see if the subconscious is able to make predictions beyond Newtons laws. Objectively, I doubt the human senses are sensitive enough to go beyond the need for Newtons laws. But the idea of a learned response to the environment was followed by the idea of closely studying that response in various experiments to see what is implied about that environment. In theory, anyway, it makes me wonder if we could learn more about gravity by these studies as well as learning more about the human condition.
:( .. :P
And the baby experiment was just mean
This is fundamental Clown Theory:
Every group has a comedian hiding in their midst.
The article should have included that information.
.31 m/s * 100 seconds = 31 meters
.14 m/s * 100 seconds = 14 meters
.29 m/s * 100 seconds = 29 meters which does not match the observed and therefore does differentiate the time form the step count.
normal:
shortened:
that is very close to the problem of time vs. step count issue.
lengthened:
Honestly, I am surprised they would even go the shortening route considering the potential impact of severing limbs on an animal would impact performance. Clearly, ants must not be too critically hindered by the loss but that is still odd to assume that amputation would not effect endurance/capacity. They are just fortunate that the added weight did slow the ants down otherwise they still would not have a very solid theory.
In actuality as a final validation, they should not be measuring anything or cutting or lengthening jack. They should film the entire trek, hit replay and start counting. Lazy scientists.
I especially like the added 'max'. So off the cuff to set an upper bound on time to complete innovation. Man, what took Einstein so damn long to complete the Unified Theory? He already had General Relativity. The Unified Theory should have only taken 2 years, max, and that lazy 'great thinker', so called, didn't even finish it!
Oh Snap!
Nuclear Fission taught us nothing. Yes, we are doomed to repeat it since we we didn't learn whatever it was you claim we have learned.
I seem to recall some mention during the last major solar event that if the event had been predicted several power management strategies could be put into effect to mitigate or minimize the outage. It the difference of reducing output briefly vs. re-initializes a massive system after an outage.
Yeah the pill goes in 26-by-13 and emerges suspiciously smaller with data. How small are RFID's these days?
Easy!!
question? answer -> gender (likeliness)
Is the robot a vessel? Yes -> female (90%)
Is the robot intended for manual labor? yes -> male (95%)
Is the robot intended for house service? yes -> female (65%)
Is the robot intended for sexual relationships? yes -> female (85%)
Is the robot an attack robot intended for use in killing intruders by castration? yes -> female (99%)
Hmmmm.. looks like odds are high that contrary to I, Robot most robots of the future will be fem-bots.
Dogs that behave like cats? That's just crazy. Clearly they are working towards the eventual release of robo-cats. The strays will present an interesting dilema to the animal shelters. Especially the no-kill sort.
Well, as far as the billion years go, who knows? The problem isn't the Earth's potential to swing in temperature. It's our ability live and prosper in those ranges. Personally, I don't want to experience just how hot/wet or cold it can get on this rock.
I just hope the insurance companies really do stop offering hurricane insurance.
Actually, I that that was weird as well. And I wondered if it was related to that scandal where the government lawyer dog was inserting those type of adjectives and disclaimers into the statements.
Hmm.. On the one hand you are right about the lack of good economical sense in this situation. However, I think you are ignoring the engineering advances involved in the construction of such a pen. The cheap, easy solutions are not always best and the expensive solution/research may lend itself to other advances in technology and/or science. Besides it's not like those scientists have anything better to research.
Screw Fusion, man. Today, I investigate the many mysteries of fly-paper.
It's the purple packers turn and I think he's going for a solar energy production bonanza. A risky move indeed.
I think much of this debate revolves around the absence of M.U.L.E.s. Apparently, we need a generic production robot that can generate materials at an incredible rate with minimal input. Primarily because we cannot support the entire infrastructure of human labor until a fairly large subset of said infrastructure is in place. Too large a subset to bring to the site in payloads, at any rate, due to the cost of moving that much material.
I thought copyright law was based on stealing stuff and hemp was based on the inability of law enforcement to easily distinguish it from controlled substances. Well, I guess I was way off! It turns out Copyright law is just just about books and hemp is just the cotton growers keeping a competitor off the shelves. Dude!
Ah, well, we ruin peoples lives because they make mistakes and are then held accountable for those mistakes. The goal at one time was not to 'ruin' but 'reform' unfortunately judging by your argument you don't buy that. I don't really buy it myself. For one thing the weed smoker clearly doesn't believe they have committed a crime. For another thing prison seems to mangle more folks than it corrects.
What is this chronic pain you speak of and why is it so commonplace in certain parts of the country. Wow, that must be a tough diagnosis to get from a physician. "Doc! I'm hurtin' man! I need a sweet score, hook me up?"
Why is weed illegal? IANALawyer but I would guess it alters one's state of mind and is therefore not to be trusted. Sure it turns out to be mostly harmless and what activity isn't somewhat dangerous these days? But the fundemental rule when applied was valid enough and no argument since has been strong enough to repeal it. *screw you, hippy lol*
*note: I don't really care (seriously) I just found your arguments strange enough to elicit comment
My wife miscarried at 2.5 months and I cried like a grown man who just lost a future child. Cuz that's what I was. All issues of viability and healthiness aside, it hurt to lose the baby. The doc showed me the intact sac holding the fetus. That's about I'll say on that.
You can be as cold and clinical as you like. Some women dislike children, so unborn children are even less of a consideration.
So have you turned 30 yet? I turn 30 next month am not really looking forward to it, no. Still I think 1976 was a good year to be born.
Hah! Move people! That's silly :)
You don't move people, you provide a place for them to move to and overtime they will go to this place, if it's a good place to be.
I have heard that S. Korea will build an empty city and then round up 8 or 9 nearby villages and force them to live there. It's an unfortunate practice but necesary for S. Korea to modernize itself. And they are committed to modernization. They have intense cellular and broadband infrastructure for these reasons, as well.
The problem with the poor people that can't seem to grow there own food isn't the people. It's the weather cycles and the corruption. I suppose if there were always good weather they would survive ok and be less civil war and strife. But the cycles of famine seem to have broken their ability to be at peace. A farmer manages to grow a crop only to have it burned or stolen by a local warlord. Not too mention the ravages of diseases, foreign and domestic. And how often is it that they are not allowed to flee or given a place to flee to?
A friend of mine wants nothing more than to hop on a spaceship and leave this miserable rock behind. So don't assume that it will be the poor, lost or homeless that journey away from mother earth when the opportunity to do so arrives.
Hadn't you heard? For centuries Man thought the moon made of cheese and long to go there. Upon arrival Man discovered it was just a dirty old rock and never looked back. Also the refinement of titanium at teh parts per million or parts per billion level is damn close to spinning straw into gold for most people. Seeing the breakers in a strip mine operation is a rude awakening to how modern mining works and future mining may work. Crush everything and run it through a fine fine sieve/chemical bath/extraction operatus. Bleh, but so it shall go.
I didn't really find any clear cut stats but the fatalities statistics at www.dropzone.com are searchable, so for 2004-2006 there were 126 reported accidents of which 24 were female. That is 19%.
i stics.cfm for 2001-2002 the average ratio of male to female is 15% female.
According to http://parapub.com/sites/parachute/resources/stat
So I guess, statistically speaking, you are more likely to die as a female skydiver.
Right. And every man dumb enough to want to intentionally risk dying for cheap thrills is rational enough to only do things which are objectively safe because of their supremely honed reflexes and perfect masculine physic.
This is weird. I thought I understood your point but your sentence is all back-assward. I guess I could try to put you shit in order then answer it? I think you meant subjectively safe.
My attempt: "Every man who risks dying is not doing safe things."
I see how you are jumping straight to the greater risks in life and in away that makes sense. People don't generally die slipping on ice. But as far as that goes nor do people die that often skydiving. At least not so much as to contribute to the national average.
So for "your about to jump out of working airplane" example, I think you are mixing fear and courage into the equation. And I understand that given the subject of risk and death but I would never say that women are not courageous or brave.
But I would say that men are more likely to be less afraid of the jump and therefore more likely on average to make the jump. Why? Is it the confidence in knowing that the cord will pull and the shoot will deploy? Do some men guenuinely believe they will survive the plunge? Or as another reply stated they are simply less afraid to die because family matters less. You see the problem is that your scenario removes control and that is a completely valid point. In the absence of control are men still more likely to take risks. Phew, I really had to work to get to this point. In the absence of control are men more likely to take risks and if so is it because they are less fearful of the consequences or more confident in their survivability? Or is the reward simply more rewarding (the thrill)? I'm guessing all three.
Ironically, from my personal experience in a group rock climbing activity a girl got scared on the cliff face and did in fact say "I am not a guy" when others were trying to encourage her to get past her fear point. Eventually she made it, she just needed more time and rest. The problem in a non-safe environment is that both time and rest may not be available.
Right. And every man dumb enough to want to intentionally risk dying for cheap thrills is rational enough to only do things which are objectively safe because of their supremely honed reflexes and perfect masculine physic./i This is weird. I thought I understood your point but your sentence is all back-assward. I guess I could try to put you shit in order then answer it? I think you meant subjectively safe. My attempt: "Every man who risks dying is not doing safe things." I see how you are jumping straight to the greater risks in life and in away that makes sense. People don't generally die slipping on ice. But as far as that goes nor do people die that often skydiving. At least not so much as to contribute to the national average. So for "your about to jump out of working airplane" example, I think you are mixing fear and courage into the equation. And I understand that given the subject of risk and death but I would never say that women are not courageous or brave. But I would say that men are more likely to be less afraid of the jump and therefore more likely on average to make the jump. Why? Is it the confidence in knowing that the cord will pull and the shoot will deploy? Do some men guenuinely believe they will survive the plunge? Or as another reply stated they are simply less afraid to die because family matters less. You see the problem is that your scenario removes control and that is a completely valid point. In the absence of control are men still more likely to take risks. Phew, I really had to work to get to this point. In the absence of control are men more likely to take risks and if so is it because they are less fearful of the consequences or more confident in their survivability? Or is the reward simply more rewarding (the thrill)? I'm guessing all three. Ironically, from my personal experience in a group rock climbing activity a girl got scared on the cliff face and did in fact say "I am not a guy" when others were trying to encourage her to get past her fear point. Eventually she made it, she just needed more time and rest. The problem in a non-safe environment is that both time and rest may not be available.